Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falun Gong’s Theory on Male-Female Dual Cultivation


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. v/r - TP 03:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Falun Gong’s Theory on Male-Female Dual Cultivation

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article does not establish that Falun Gong has a theory on male-female dual cultivation. It also seems to be used as a coatrack to hang (true or not) accusations of improper actions on some people. Notable information should be put where it belongs, in the main article on Falun Gong or in articles on notable individuals. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not really sure what to do with this article. Many of the sources are written in Chinese (and at least one in Russian), and although Google Translate does make the text somewhat readable, it is hard to verify the statements made in the article based on the text.  It would be helpful to get a reader of Chinese to look into this further.  One other possibility (that I don't necessarily support yet) is to merge these into Teachings of Falun Gong.  I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 17:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I, Jethrobot  has asked me to evaluate some of the Chinese-language sources used on the page.  I'll list them here:
 * The majority of the citations are from a website "Minghui.org" – on its "About Us" page, it describes itself as "[our] main aim is in using direct first-hand information from Mainland China to expose the Chinese Communist Party's persecution of Falun Gong, and to make clear the true nature of Falun Gong...." . Though much of the information the website publishes could be true, this is unlikely to be a reliable source.
 * A number of other sources come from "Kaiwind.com" – this Chinese-language website seems to no longer exist, but French, Spanish, and English versions remain available. It is essentially the opposite of "Minghui.org", and purports to have exposées of Falun Gong's hidden evils.  This website is almost certainly an unreliable source.
 * The other sources, such as the ones near the end of the article, are mostly links to pages of Buddhist teachers in China. These also tend to be unreliable (see earlier versions of Hsu Yun for example) – in any case, removing the material sourced from the above two websites makes these unnecessary, anyway.
 * In summary, the Chinese-language sources used on the page are all non-peer-reviewed websites and are unlikely to meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. The article probably merits deletion under WP:Notability guidelines, as well.  Glad I could be of service.   White Whirlwind  咨   19:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * CommentThis article has numerous problems from my perspective. I'm fairly familiar with the literature on Falun Gong's teachings, and this issue of "dual cultivation" hasn't been considered notable in anything I've read. I does exist, but I don't see any reliable source discussing it as a notable element of Falungong's beliefs. The other problem I see is that the article is an interpretation of these of these teachings, and it doesn't seem consistent or coherent. I don't see how this article would bring a reader anything but confusion. — Zujine |talk 03:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article doesn't even bother to explain what "male-female dual cultivation" means. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete based on the assessment by White_whirlwind and on the basis that an article on this subject would require an complete rewrite to be coherent. I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 23:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I am really quite sympathetic, I think the whole yin-yang thing would be very interesting to write about. But looking over the sources and the article itself spends so much time quoting people without explaining what the concept is. But it does seem like a hit piece from a Chinese perspective... the whole mixing up sexes thing is not good based on their perspective of harmonry and order.--Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 01:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - In addition to the issues, with sourcing, I'm not convinced that this particular concept within one belief system is notable enough for its own article, and this confusingly written piece does nothing to convince me that it is.--Danaman5 (talk) 04:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.